S
sidbrown
Guest
Why did the Roman Pope send such an incompetent person to Constantinople?
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Probably because he wanted someone there who could stand up to the pretensions of the power-hungry patriarch.
Condemning Latin practices, closing down Latin Churches, wanting to be Emperor himself. :tsktsk:Blessings
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Seems he should have sent someone competant then.Probably because he wanted someone there who could stand up to the pretensions of the power-hungry patriarch.
Blessings
By the way, the Churches were closed after the Excommunication of the Pope.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Blessings,
Marduk
Actually, the churches (and monasteries) were forcibly closed before that. It was in fact one of the main reasons for which Cardinal Humbert was sent to Constantinople - to negotiate the reopening of the churches and monasteries.
Blessings,
Marduk
P
prodromos
Guest
ooh, I’ve got to see this citation.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
What I found said otherwise, although if it was before I imagine it was in response to the closing of Churches in the Norman territories.
Anyway, if that was why he was sent over he failed miserably, which reignites the question, why did the pope send someone so incompetant?
V
valoriuslobo
Guest
Just read a statement a Russian (if I got that right?) Orthodox Bishop made that basically refuted the statement that progress had been made at the dialogue; he said to the effect that the issue of primacy in the modern era hadn’t yet even been addressed.
I think it’s very sad that the “two lungs” as JPII called them are breathing separately. I pray for a reunion daily and we just have to trust in the Divine.
I wonder what it would take for the Orthdox hierarchy to budge on the primacy issue… The Roman Rite would regain so much about a traditional and mystical approach to liturgy etc and the Orthodox would gain a much needed central leadership, if there were a reunion. IMHO
I think it’s very sad that the “two lungs” as JPII called them are breathing separately. I pray for a reunion daily and we just have to trust in the Divine.
I wonder what it would take for the Orthdox hierarchy to budge on the primacy issue…
The Roman Rite would regain so much about a traditional and mystical approach to liturgy etc and the Orthodox would gain a much needed central leadership, if there were a reunion. IMHO
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
No offense, but what exactly would we gain from a “central leadership”?
V
valoriuslobo
Guest
None taken…
I just think, and this just an opinion, that the Church without a leader (ie supreme pontiff) is like a company without its CEO. It would be as if Microsoft allowed its marketing division and production division to operate independent of each other.
However, one can counter-argue that the Orthodox part of the Church has gotten by just fine since 1054 without central leadership… but I love the Pope so I’m not exactly the one to go there…
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Orthodox Bishops accepting the modern Catholic definition of Primacy is not something that is going to happen. Rome is going to have to fully return to the pre-schism organization.I wonder what it would take for the Orthdox hierarchy to budge on the primacy issue…
And we’ve survived for 1,000 years without “central leadership”, we’ll survive another 1,000.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Orthodox Bishops accepting the modern Catholic definition of Primacy is not something that is going to happen. Rome is going to have to fully return to the pre-schism organization.I wonder what it would take for the Orthdox hierarchy to budge on the primacy issue…
And we’ve survived for 1,000 years without “central leadership”, we’ll survive another 1,000.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
That analogy works well if we are talking about a human institution. Of course the Church is not a human institution but rather the Body of Christ guided by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God’s ways are inscrutable, He doesn’t require an institution built on human reason to lead the Church in all truth. As you have pointed out the Orthodox Church is proof of that.None taken…
I just think, and this just an opinion, that the Church without a leader (ie supreme pontiff) is like a company without its CEO. It would be as if Microsoft allowed its marketing division and production division to operate independent of each other.
However, one can counter-argue that the Orthodox part of the Church has gotten by just fine since 1054 without central leadership… but I love the Pope so I’m not exactly the one to go there…
In Christ
Joe
5
5Loaves
Guest
This, VIENNA, Austria, SEPT. 29, 2010 (Zenit.org), is the only update I’ve seen which came out yesterday, that they concluded their six day meeting.
At least it appears there was good representation:
P.S. VIENNA, Austria, SEPT. 29, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a communique released at the conclusion of the 12th plenary session of the International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which took place Sept. 22-27 in Vienna.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Joe,
That is why Christ came and died for us. The Church is made of sinners.
That is why the Apostles, with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, instituted bishops. If your argument were true, we wouldn’t even need bishops, and we might as well be congregationalists.
That is why Christ, in his divine wisdom, knew that even the Apostles would need a head to confirm their faith, because the Apostles were only human.
That is why even the head of the Apostles needed correction as well.
That is why the Apostles instituted the law that every body of bishops must have its head.
That is why even that head must act in union with the body.
Your argument here really does not make a dent in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of a visible head for the whole Church. To be consistent with your own position as expressed here, you would have to deny the necessity of bishops and head bishops in your own Church as well. After all (according to you), all we need is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is nothing more than the standard Protestant rhetoric. It is not at all convincing coming from them. And it is even less convincing (if there can indeed be a “less” than nothing) coming from an Apostolic Christian.
Blessings,
Marduk
Actually, the Church is a human institution.That analogy works well if we are talking about a human institution. Of course the Church is not a human institution but rather the Body of Christ guided by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God’s ways are inscrutable, He doesn’t require an institution built on human reason to lead the Church in all truth. As you have pointed out the Orthodox Church is proof of that.
That is why Christ came and died for us. The Church is made of sinners.
That is why the Apostles, with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, instituted bishops. If your argument were true, we wouldn’t even need bishops, and we might as well be congregationalists.
That is why Christ, in his divine wisdom, knew that even the Apostles would need a head to confirm their faith, because the Apostles were only human.
That is why even the head of the Apostles needed correction as well.
That is why the Apostles instituted the law that every body of bishops must have its head.
That is why even that head must act in union with the body.
Your argument here really does not make a dent in the Catholic teaching on the necessity of a visible head for the whole Church. To be consistent with your own position as expressed here, you would have to deny the necessity of bishops and head bishops in your own Church as well. After all (according to you), all we need is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, right?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is nothing more than the standard Protestant rhetoric. It is not at all convincing coming from them. And it is even less convincing (if there can indeed be a “less” than nothing) coming from an Apostolic Christian.Blessings,
Marduk
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
The Catholic Church is indeed a human institution led by the humanist par excellence, the Pope.
Not relevant to my point.
That’s begging the question so typical of Catholic apologetics. Simply because we have bishops doesn’t mean we have one infallible uber-bishop.That is why the Apostles, with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, instituted bishops. If your argument were true, we wouldn’t even need bishops, and we might as well be congregationalists.
Of course we see how well that confirming of the brethren works. By you own admission the majority of Latin Catholics don’t know what the Church teaches. What good is an infallible bishop is no one knows what he teaches?
St Peter was corrected, the teachings of the Pope are “of themselves irreformable.”
But not that the head had power over and above his brother bishops.
According to Catholic dogma doesn’t have to.
On the contrary my brother the very existence of Holy Orthodoxy is a daily reproach of the man-centered ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
Begging the question again my friend.To be consistent with your own position as expressed here, you would have to deny the necessity of bishops and head bishops in your own Church as well. After all (according to you), all we need is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, right?
Listen my friend, your offspring the Protestants came from your bosom, not ours. They are nothing but the logical conclusion of your man-centered theology. What do you say; like Mother like Daughter?
In Christ
Joe
A
Athanasius7
Guest
I agree 100% with Joe. Also, these ecumenical meetings appear to be over-represented by well known ecumenists. The vast majority of Orthodox are not represented by a minority of very ecumenical minded bishops, primarily from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. What we need is more honesty which fosters mutual respect rather than nice but meaningless platitudes about two lungs or primacy. There Church of Christ, the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church has both of its lungs. If a Roman Catholic feels the same way abt the Orthodox Church, while I think they are wrong, I would respect them and can dialog with them.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Joe,
I guess there are no Protestants in countries dominated by the EOC, since, according to you, she is such a bulwark of perfection?
Log in the eye, brother - log in the eye.
Blessings,
Marduk
And the EOC is oh so perfect? Log in the eye, brother.
Of course it is. It is because of our human weakness that Jesus set leaders over the laity.
No its not. The fact that you have bishops means that you inherently understand the shortcomings of humanity who does need leadership. The fact that you have bishops means that you inherently accept that that the Church cannot function without human leaders. And the fact that you can’t accept the Pope demonstrates the inconsistency of your argument.
Every Catholic knows enough to live their lives as faithful Catholics. That’s all that matters. It’s just that EO love to utilize the fallacy of proving to much to pretend their Church is perfect. As an Oriental, I can heap accusations of what I percieve are inconsistent and unpatristic practicies and teachings on you and your Church. But I won’t do so because you have a right to your own developments in practice and theology. The problem comes when you don’t recognize that you have developments, and disparage other Churches meanwhile for having their own. Log in the eye, brother.
Don’t even pretend that St. Peter was corrected for doctrine. That’s beneath you.
I’ll agree with you there, but if you think that is what V1 and V2 teaches, then you are just towing the standard EO polemic line. Think for yourself, brother. Read some orthodox Catholic books about V1 and V2, instead of non-Catholic ones. IMO, the MP has more pretensions to power than our Pope does, so look to your own house first. Log in the eye, brother.
Nope. I invite you to participate in the “infallibilty - revisited” thread to voice your concerns. Let’s discuss it to see if your perception is valid according to what the V1 Fathers intended.
And the very existence of the Catholic Church is a daily reproach to those who think she is not from God. The Orthodox Churches are already part of the Catholic Church, and vice-versa, and always have been. Only misunderstanding has kept us visibly apart.
In what way? You just can’t say X and expect us to believe it. Demonstrate how I have begged the question, even as I have demonstrated the inconsitency in your position.
The Protestants are an offspring of liberal thinking gone bad in the wake of the Renaissance, not of the Catholic Church. It came from outside, not from within the Church. The medieval course studies offered by the EOC must be pretty poor not to see the difference.Listen my friend, your offspring the Protestants came from your bosom, not ours. They are nothing but the logical conclusion of your man-centered theology. What do you say; like Mother like Daughter?
I guess there are no Protestants in countries dominated by the EOC, since, according to you, she is such a bulwark of perfection? Log in the eye, brother - log in the eye.Blessings,
Marduk
S
sidbrown
Guest
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest and as well, King Henry VIII was called the Catholic Defender of the Faith.
P
prodromos
Guest
The first link is very disappointing and has left me with much less respect for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It makes no mention of the link between the Norman forcing of Latin practices on Churches under Byzantine control as a reason for the Patriarch’s actions towards the Latin Churches in Constantinople, then it suggests that Cardinal Humbert ‘took advantage of’ a situation he could have had no knowledge of. Is it the understanding of the Catholic Church that Cardinal humbert knew of the Pope’s death? Apart from that it says nothing about pretensions of being Emperor.
Your second link implies something but no references are given.
Your third link is a blog entry which only claims that Emperor Isaac I Comnenus charged Patriarch Michael with having ordered a pair of purple slippers, but leaves open who they were intended for. Again, no references are given.
So, citations were requested and none were given. All we have suggesting that Patriarch Michael wanted to be Emperor is your say so. You will have to forgive me if I don’t consider your word to be an authority on the subject.
John
- Status